Case Digest (G.R. No. 56384)
Facts:
Mayor Francisco Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 56384, March 22, 1984, the Supreme Court En Banc, Relova, J., writing for the Court.On October 21, 1980 an information was filed before the Sandiganbayan charging Mayor Francisco Lecaroz with the crime of grave coercion. The original information alleged that on or about July 2, 1979 in Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, petitioner, "taking advantage of his public position," took over the operation and control of a gasoline station owned by Pedro Par, caused the gasoline to be sold by issuing invoices and pad papers, and padlocked the dispensing pump, thereby depriving Pedro Par of his lawful trade by means of threat, force and/or violence. On November 27, 1980 the information was amended to allege specifically that these acts were done "by ordering his policemen companions."
Petitioner moved to quash the information principally contending that the Sandiganbayan lacked jurisdiction because the offense should have been prosecuted by the ordinary courts in Marinduque where the alleged acts occurred. The respondent court denied the motion to quash and refused petitioner’s request to transfer the hearing to the Court of First Instance of Marinduque. Petitioner then instituted a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court seeking relief from the Sandiganbayan’s denial, alleging (a) the offense was not related to his office; (b) that Section 4(c) of Presidential Decree No. 1486, as amended, did not confer jurisdiction over grave coercion; and (c) that denial of transfer was a grave abuse because witnesses were in Marinduque.
The Supreme Court decision records that a temporary restraining order had been issued on March 12, 1982; the present petition sought relief from the Sandiganbay...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction to try petitioner for grave coercion as an offense "committed by a public officer in relation to his office"?
- Is Section 4(c) of Presidential Decree No. 1486, as amended, inconsistent with Section 5, Article XIII of the Constitution?
- Did the Sandiganbayan commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the transfer of the case to the Court of First Instance of Marinduque?
- Did Presidential Decree No. 1861 (amending PD 1606) divest the Sandiganba...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)